Regulations are out - Page 9

TheEngineer · #81 10-01-2007, 11:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
TE,

I like the letter. At the same time, I wonder if it would be better to attack section by section instead of a general letter format. Also show support for things we like.

For example in the section about exemptions they say:
"The Agencies request comments on all aspects of the exemptions, but in particular, whether the exemptions for certain participants in the ACH systems....are appropriate"

Shouldn't we take the time to echo our support for the ability for financial institutions to receive exemptions and state that we expect that these exemptions will be granted to such financial entities requesting them.

I would think this is important to fight off the FOF type groups when they fight against specific sections and we are silent.

How easily one of these financial institutions are granted an exemption seems like a big thing...

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. We'll be writing LOTS of comments, including short ones like "poker isn't illegal in my state....how will the regs protect my right to play?".

DeadMoneyDad · #82 10-01-2007, 11:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Please let me know what the group thinks about this comment. Also, should we reveal our names etc. with any comment. D$D or TheEngineer, it might be helpful for you to post general directions about how to properly address and sign comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

The information is on the site and likely to be on the PPA site soon.

Perhaps in the 2+2 tradition cliff notes??

D$D

JPFisher55 · #83 10-01-2007, 11:42 PM

TE, I like your comment. However, I have a question. Should our comments be general in nature like your comment or concern specific parts of the proposed regulations and the discussion on them like the one that I posted?
Also, is it wise to suggest that the Agencies define the term unlawful internet gambling? They might not use your excellent definition but one unfavorable to us. Also, the Agencies might then use their interpretation to develop the list of unlawful internet gambling busineses. I thought that you wanted to keep the regulations vague to avoid litigation over them.

TheEngineer · #84 10-01-2007, 11:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, I understand where it is you're coming from.............but I have to admit that I feel a sense of danger in calling their hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do too. Still, you know I like us to be on offense. If FOF asks for a definition, we should be able to match them with a similar request, with our version of why, I think. Besides, if they were able to define it and include poker, they would have already.

Also, the jumbled reg may help us with IGREA and the Wexler bill, especially as the horses are clearly at risk.

TheEngineer · #85 10-01-2007, 11:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
TE, I like your comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I have a question. Should our comments be general in nature like your comment or concern specific parts of the proposed regulations and the discussion on them like the one that I posted?
Also, is it wise to suggest that the Agencies define the term unlawful internet gambling? They might not use your excellent definition but one unfavorable to us. Also, the Agencies might then use their interpretation to develop the list of unlawful internet gambling busineses. I thought that you wanted to keep the regulations vague to avoid litigation over them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be submitting many comments. Many will attack specific parts of the regs.

As for the definition, if they were going to include poker, they would have already, I think. After all, poker is the only offshore Internet gaming that still operates in the open, with commercials (at least for the .nets). Surely they'd be the regs' first target if the Treasury Dept felt they could. I don't want litigation at all (and I certainly don't want the definition to go against us), but I do want to demonstrate that we don't fear a definition.

I also want to express our need to stop banks from overblocking, which is a big risk for us. Keeping the vague definition while getting overblocking protection would not be a bad outcome at all.

TheEngineer · #86 10-01-2007, 11:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Please let me know what the group thinks about this comment. Also, should we reveal our names etc. with any comment. D$D or TheEngineer, it might be helpful for you to post general directions about how to properly address and sign comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to reveal your real name when posting your comments.

IndyFish · #87 10-02-2007, 12:03 AM

I like your comment, JPFisher. The Agencies seem to agree and mention something along the same lines in the second paragraph of page 25. Some editing to make your comment more reader-friendly might be in order though.

A couple of questions for the legal types here:

1. The last paragraph of page 24 says that a business that engages in unlawful internet gambling might also engage in activities that are not prohibited under the UIGEA and those legal activities should not be blocked. So.....does this clear ePassporte if ePassporte can also be used as a normal VISA? (as their website claims, anyway.)

2. Are those of us in the 11 "axis of evil" states doomed? Or are the banks likely to not differentiate from state to state and go more by federal law?

Also a quick "thank you" to those of you with a legal background helping the rest of us to understand this mess.

JPFisher55 · #88 10-02-2007, 12:07 AM

TE, I recommend the following language in the place of the last large paragraph of your comment that defines unlawful internet gambling.

These issues can largely be avoided by defining the term “unlawful Internet gambling” in the regulations. I propose defining illegal Internet gambling as all gambling that is clearly illegal under existing federal law, plus that which is unambiguously illegal under state laws. Federal law is relatively clear in this matter – per appeals court decisions in re MasterCard International Inc. and other cases, the Wire Act covers sports betting only (excluding horse racing per the Interstate Horse Racing Act). Additionally, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 covers interstate (and, in 46 states, intrastate) professional and amateur sports betting. That is all that is covered by federal law.
Since federal case law holds that the Wire Act only covers sports betting, then, for the application under federal law, the term unlawful internet gambling should only include all internet sports betting except for horse racing as defined under the Interstate Horse Racing Act.
Very few states have expressly outlawed Internet gambling. For application under state laws, to keep from placing an unfair burden on our banks, in defining the term unlawful internet gambling, the regulations should specify that state laws must contain a provision that uses the term internet gambling and expressly states that all internet gambling is unlawful, or other similar language or expressly states the specific forms of internet gambling banned by that state. Additionally, states wishing to have federal assistance in enforcing their Internet gambling restrictions should be required to request this assistance from the Treasury Department. This will enable our banks to have a clear understanding of what it required of them.

TheEngineer · #89 10-02-2007, 12:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, I understand where it is you're coming from.............but I have to admit that I feel a sense of danger in calling their hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

One more thing was on my mind. They didn't define "unlawful Internet gambling" because they couldn't. If they get 2,000 FoF comments, all with the same proposed definition, they may decide it can be defined. OTOH, if they get a bunch of proposals to define it as only sports betting and a bunch of others saying they should ban everything, they'll decide they were right -- they can't define it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

JPFisher55 · #90 10-02-2007, 12:29 AM

Indyfish, the short answer is who knows for sure. IMO, federal law does not prohibit internet poker. While some states do and some probably do, I wonder if any of these laws would hold up to a serious court challenge.
I wish that I knew what banks will do.
Heck yesterday, TE and I exchanged posts about what type of regs that was best for online poker. I thought that specific regs might be best because they would be easier to challenge in court. I was afraid that vague regs might cause the banks to overreact and block too much; especially Epassporte and other online poker transactions.
TE wanted vague regs to avoid litigation. We agreed that vague regs were most likely. I kind of like the proposed regs because they seem to require that banks have some knowledge, or access to knowledge, that a transaction involves unlawful internet gambling before a bank has to have policies to block these restricted transactions. Also, no list of unlawful internet gambling businesses is proposed. But today TE seems to be worried about overblocking by banks. This whole matter seems very muddied to me. In their lawsuit, I think that the iMEGA should have made a better argument that the UIGEA was too vague to be enforceable under the constitution.